MANGLA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal Mangla Ram and others have challenged their conviction under Sec. 302,i. P. C. for murder of Umaram Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1997 is filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of Mangla Ram for offence under Sec. 307, I. P. C. for attempting to murder Brijlal and Criminal Revision No. 375 of 1995 is filed against the acquittal of Mangla Ram u/sec. 307, I. P. C.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the appeals as aforesaid, stated briefly are that in the morning of 31. 7. 94 the complainants went to their field early in the morning when they were assaulted by the accused persons who were duly armed. The assault resulted in the death of Umaram and hurt to Brijlal son of Umaram. It is alleged that the quarrel took place on account of the dispute over possession of certain agricultural land which were initially allotted to one Motiram, father of Umaram and Manglaram. In fact Umaram and Manglaram are the real brothers and the dispute is regarding proprietary rights and possession of certain immovable properties initially belonging to Motiram. After the report as aforesaid was lodged, investigation was taken up and the accused persons after being arrested were duly prosecuted and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence as was led by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused were guilty of murdering Umaram and causing hurt to Brijlal. The learned Judge however found that there is no evidence sufficient for conviction of the accused persons under Sec. 307, I. P. C. for attempting to commit murder of Brijlal. Accordingly, he has acquitted the accused of the charge under Sec. 307, I. P. C. the above appeals as stated earlier have been filed by the concerned parties. In view of the fact that all the appeals and revision raise question of appreciation of evidence arising out of the same incident and the same judgment is impugned the cases are being disposed of by common judgment.

(3.) P. W. 2 Brijlal is the injured witness who names all the accused persons and describe the weapon in their hands and tells very accurately who hit whom and with what weapon. He also given explanation of the injuries caused to the accused persons. The testimony of this witness is also like other relations. Evidence of P. W. 4 Jadawali, and P. W. 5 Draupadi have been severely criticised by the learned Judge for the improvements made by the witnesses. Neither in the first information report nor in the statements recorded under Sec. 161, Cr. P. C. it was stated by these persons that each of the accused persons possessed what arm and hit whether the deceased Umaram or the injured Brijlal. It was, therefore, canvassed before us that in view of the serious improvements made by the witnesses in relation to the weapon their entire testimony is liable to be rejected. Admittedly, according to the defence the complainant party was aggressor and, therefore, disbelieving the evidence of these persons the order of acquittal should follow. We have gone through the depositions of P. W. 2, P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and P. W. 6. We have re-appreciated their statements and we have no hesitation in holding that each of these witnesses have tried to improve the prosecution case by ascribing definite role to each accused with a definite weapon and it is a clear case of little improvement in the prosecution case, but in our opinion such improvements is natural as they were deposing in relation to an incident in which they lost a family member. But the nature of improvement if properly appreciated would show that the purpose of improvement was not to implicate the accused persons but to explain the prosecution case. P. W. 2 Brijlal has said:-